Support NeoGAF

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

If you're White & Poor the government is more likely to help you, police are less inclined to fuck with you, people are less likely to vote to spite you (though also end up hurting themselves) and people are less likely to assume you are lazy and/or a criminal. How is that not Racial Privilege?

Because the homeless in America get zero help. White or Black. Male or Female. Police harass the homeless indiscriminately and bulldoze their camps collectively. White Americans who vote Republican vote to take away any social security that exists for both White people and People of Color who are homeless.

Maybe the question boils down to one of semantics (as brought up earlier in the thread). But private lip service in the face of public discrimination and poverty is no privilege.

 

[Syder]

So yeah, umm racism doesn't work like that. Everyone can be discriminatory or prejudiced but in the current power dynamic we have minorities cannot be racist towards the majority or white people.

Racism doesn't work like that either.

 

[Madame M]

Racism doesn't work like that either.

The math formula is racism = power + prejudice, it's simple math.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

This thread isn't about "white people". It's about a woman going so far into substance-less politics that she even labels people of color as being racist and benefiting from privilege.

Eh it actually is since we're discussing the validity of what she's saying since people obviously agree or disagreed with her statement and we're having a discourse about it....

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

What on earth do you mean by this? I get the first part but lol that second part...

The government enabled the crack epidemic and it currently enables the opioid epidemic.

Racism doesn't work like that either.

Again, it comes down to semantics. Racism without political power doesn't matter and has pretty much zero effect. Racism that does have political power is effective and pervasive.

 

[Syder]

The math formula is racism = power + prejudice, it's simple math.

Racism has nothing to do with mathematics either.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

So yeah, umm racism doesn't work like that. Everyone can be discriminatory or prejudiced but in the current power dynamic we have minorities cannot be racist towards the majority or white people.

Minorities can't be racist? Are you serious?

If you are, I cannot say how wrong you are. If I'm misunderstanding please correct me because this statement is hard to believe.

 

[Madame M]

Racism has nothing to do with mathematics either.

How dare you question the new orthodoxy

 

[MikeBreezy92]

Minorities can't be racist? Are you serious?

If you are, I cannot say how wrong you are. If I'm misunderstanding please correct me because this statement is hard to believe.

Re-read my statement

Racism is more than just being discriminatory or predjudiced. It has a lot to do with power dynamics systemic and non-systemic that hurts minorities in more ways than one.

 

[Albino_Yeti]

So yeah, umm racism doesn't work like that. Everyone can be discriminatory or prejudiced but in the current power dynamic we have minorities cannot be racist towards the majority or white people.

This is very, very wrong.

 

[Ponn]

No one has said that white privilege doesn't exist.

The person in the OP said that white privilege is so pervasive that not only are all white people complicit and racist but also a large portion of people of color of a specific skin type.

Again, what is the point of arguing about homeless people? If you say you aren't arguing that white privilege doesn't exist, and you are clear on the definition of it (I'm assuming you are, maybe I'm wrong) then you would know it's not based on income. It's not something that comes and goes with your paycheck. People in different classes and different income brackets enjoy different levels of privilege. Some barely any, but it doesn't disappear and then magically reappear if they get back on their feet.

I feel like people keep hearing "white privilege" and their definition of it is off. It doesn't mean white people live like kings.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Re-read my statement

Racism is more than just being discriminatory or predjudiced. It has a lot to do with power dynamics systemic and non-systemic that hurts minorities in more ways than one.

Based off of what definition? And even disregarding interpretation of the word racism, your rebuttal was purely semantic. I assume you weren't implying that it's okay for minorities to say things that are prejudicicial or discriminatory, right?

 

[Crocodile]

Because the homeless in America get zero help. White or Black. Male or Female. Police harass the homeless indiscriminately and bulldoze their camps collectively. White Americans who vote Republican vote to take away any social security that exists for both White people and People of Color who are homeless.

Maybe the question boils down to one of semantics (as brought up earlier in the thread). But private lip service in the face of public discrimination and poverty is no privilege.

The government enabled the crack epidemic and it currently enables the opioid epidemic.

I gave you several examples where people of the lower/lowest class get treated differently depending on their race. Like they are all factually true. PoC get treated worse than White people when you account for other factors (like class). That's what White privilege means. You can't say you believe in racism or understand racial privilege if you're just going to essentially scream FAKE NEWS at my real examples.

Minorities can't be racist? Are you serious?

If you are, I cannot say how wrong you are. If I'm misunderstanding please correct me because this statement is hard to believe.

Just as a heads up, you're about to enter into a semantics argument. Some do define (systematic) racism as prejudice + power. Since PoC have so little power, they can't be (systematically) racist. They can easily be racist on a more personal level but oftentimes people call racism that isn't systematic just prejudice. Y'all are mostly on the same page, just a potential difference in terminology.

Spoiler

Note how I use the word "systematic", its super important to this distinction and discussion.

Based off of what definition? And even disregarding interpretation of the word racism, your rebuttal was purely semantic. I assume you weren't implying that it's okay for minorities to say things that are prejudicial or discriminatory, right?

He is obviously not saying that. Nobody is - the only actual discussion is application of this on a systematic level.

 

[The Fatal Englishman]

So yeah, umm racism doesn't work like that. Everyone can be discriminatory or prejudiced but in the current power dynamic we have minorities cannot be racist towards the majority or white people.

Is this a global truth in your mind? An Americentric truth? Can I be a racist in America and only prejudiced in Zimbabwe? If I were a Chinese national, could I be racist in the PRC and 'prejudiced' in Indonesia?

 

[Madame M]

Is this a global truth in your mind? An Americentric truth? Can I be a racist in America and only prejudiced in Zimbabwe? If I were a Chinese national, could I be racist in the PRC and 'prejudiced' in Indonesia?

Subjectivity man, get used to it!

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I gave you several examples where people of the lower/lowest class get treated differently depending on their race. Like they are all factually true. PoC get treated worse than White people when you account for other factors (like class). That's what White privilege means. You can't say you believe in racism or understand racial privilege if you're just going to essentially scream FAKE NEWS at my

Ah, so now I'm a Trumpet screaming "Fake News" because I, as a person of color, don't truck with your paternalistic and shallow politics of "all white people are racist and privileged".

I guess the next "Shit White Liberals Do" thing you're gonna do is call me Racist.

 

[OG Shaka Zulu]

There's worst things then being called racist.

I would not wish being called racist on my worst enemy.

 

[Kite]

I am always amused when I see this posted, if both pics were from the same news agency or at least both American it would make sense. But one is the AP (Associated Press) and the other is AFT(Agence France-Presse).. international new agency. So the French are racist or give white looters as pass I guess.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

Based off of what definition? And even disregarding interpretation of the word racism, your rebuttal was purely semantic. I assume you weren't implying that it's okay for minorities to say things that are prejudicicial or discriminatory, right?

That's not the implication. The thing is that the current (or old I've seen waaay to many definitions at this point) textbook definition of racism is too limiting and it doesn't really get into the grit of what racism as a system does.

No that doesn't say "hey minorities be predjudiced!!" But if they were being predjudiced, that instant of discrimination couldn't compare to say a "oppressor" doing the same to them.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I am always amused when I see this posted, if both pics were from the same news agency or at least both American it would make sense. But one is the AP (Associated Press) and the other is AFT(Agence France-Presse).. international new agency. So the French are racist or give white looters as pass I guess.

That woman benefited greatly by a French paper saying she found food instead of looted it. I bet she completely forgot about how society failed her and she was forced to risk her life for basic necessities.

And, if she lives in Houston, she gets to do it all over again.

What a shining example of privilege!

 

[Crocodile]

Ah, so now I'm a Trumpet screaming "Fake News" because I, as a person of color, don't truck with your paternalistic and shallow politics of "all white people are racist and privileged".

I guess the next "Shit White Liberals Do" thing you're gonna do is call me Racist.

I think what I feel most comfortable doing right now is saying you enjoy ignoring points you don't find favorable and you like putting words in people's mouths? If I think you're a Trump voter or racist I'll be sure to let you know. What puzzles me most is I'm not sure how this conversation can proceed if I say something factual and you're response is basically "WRONG!"

 

[MikeBreezy92]

Is this a global truth in your mind? An Americentric truth? Can I be a racist in America and only prejudiced in Zimbabwe? If I were a Chinese national, could I be racist in the PRC and 'prejudiced' in Indonesia?

Yeah pretty much all this. It's about power dynamics and less about the specific race. Although the Zimbabwe can be argued to be a result of imperialism through white supremacy if they ended up colonized. I don't know my African history that well.

 

[Hello? This is Hailun!]

I think what I feel most comfortable doing right now is saying you enjoy ignoring points you don't find favorable and you like putting words in people's mouths?

You've accused me of taking your posts as "fake news" but say I'm putting words in your mouth. Even though my position is pretty straightforward: Lip service in the face of poverty doesn't make the poor privileged.

Your cohort in this thread has stated that I've said that white privilege doesn't exist.

You shouldn't have any doubts as to why people of color don't trust white liberals.

If I think you're a Trump voter or racist I'll be sure to let you know.

Please, oh white Liberal, tell me more about myself.

I'm telling you that something like poverty in the face of congenial lip service means nothing and isn't a privilege and you're telling me "WRONG!"

 

[ForsakenLotus]

He is obviously not saying that. Nobody is - the only actual discussion is application of this on a systematic level.

My initial statement was about it not being okay to say racist, prejudicial, discriminatory, whatever things about anybody - and more pointedly that it's not okay to say those kinds of things to white people/the majority because they haven't suffered. So when somebody replies by arguing semantics by saying the majority can't suffer from racism is purely semantics if I give him the benefit of the doubt.

And quite honestly, the idea that racism can only be inflicted on minority is a really odd viewpoint. Odd being the kind expression as a cursory dialogue and minimal etiquette prevents me from saying or assuming more.

 

[Blackie]

Hmm. Not sure about the whole situation but love her response.

 

[Crocodile]

I am always amused when I see this posted, if both pics were from the same news agency or at least both American it would make sense. But one is the AP (Associated Press) and the other is AFT(Agence France-Presse).. international new agency. So the French are racist or give white looters as pass I guess.

@the bolded: Er yes? Or more accurately, French people are also likely to assume the worst about poor Black people and more likely to give poor White people a break. Racism, White Privilege, White Supremacy, etc. (note that these aren't all the same thing) aren't exclusive to America. The difference in response between the crack and opiod epidemic, Regean's "welfare queens", Nixon and Trump "Law and Order", what prompted the rise of Black Lives Matter, etc. are all examples of how PoC are assumed to be lazy or criminal if that particular looting example isn't to your liking

 

[Pryce]

I stand for tolerance and acceptance - but neither can be achieved if we are unwilling to discuss WHY intolerance and hate exist in the first place.

There's a conversation to be had but you don't go about in that way at all.

 

[The Fatal Englishman]

That's not the implication. The thing is that the current (or old I've seen waaay to many definitions at this point) textbook definition of racism is too limiting and it doesn't really get into the grit of what racism as a system does.

No that doesn't say "hey minorities be predjudiced!!" But if they were being predjudiced, that instant of discrimination couldn't compare to say a "oppressor" doing the same to me.

The civil rights movement dealt with the definitional problem years ago. 'Systemic' or 'Institutional' Racism serve as perfectly apt terms for the particular variety you are talking about.

The reason why objections might be raised to your approach, apart from being divisive for the sake of being divisive, is simply that it smacks of legitimising morally/socially objectionable behaviour on the grounds of the inate characteristics of the perpetrator.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

That's not the implication. The thing is that the current (or old I've seen waaay to many definitions at this point) textbook definition of racism is too limiting and it doesn't really get into the grit of what racism as a system does.

No that doesn't say "hey minorities be predjudiced!!" But if they were being predjudiced, that instant of discrimination couldn't compare to say a "oppressor" doing the same to them.

Racism doesn't mean a system of racism. If you want or need a new term or phrase to describe the ramifications of systemic discrimination of minorities I understand, but that doesn't give you license to co-opt a word. Furthermore, while I agree that racism aimed at a majority is different than a minority purely from a macro sense, my entire point was that none of us should be okay with racism in either direction. The suffering of minorities doesn't somehow make allowances for the suffering of the majority.

If somebody makes a disparaging remark about white people, it's not okay because they are the majority. That is racist. There is a growing trend of people not only saying more disparaging things about white peoples, but others seemingly saying it's okay or that white people are fragile because they can't take a little racism.

Obviously you choose to use racism differently, but interchange whatever synonym you want it doesn't change my point.

 

[dark_quota]

When you're representing a company, it is best not to say something that may upset a large part of its customer base.

 

[Syder]

Please, oh white Liberal, tell me more about myself.

I'm telling you that something like poverty in the face of congenial lip service means nothing and isn't a privilege and you're telling me "WRONG!"

That's the problem with the 'racism with power is the only racism' viewpoint. Sure, political and institutionalised racism is the worst but you cannot discount all other forms.

I wonder how these people reconcile the existence of Black Trump voters or Hispanic minorities in the US who are racist towards Black people.

 

[Crocodile]

You've accused me of taking your posts as "fake news" but say I'm putting words in your mouth. Even though my position is pretty straightforward: Lip service in the face of poverty doesn't make the poor privileged.

Your cohort in this thread has stated that I've said that white privilege doesn't exist.

You shouldn't have any doubts as to why people of color don't trust white liberals.

Please, oh white Liberal, tell me more about myself.

I'm telling you that something like poverty in the face of congenial lip service means nothing and you're telling me "WRONG!"

Funny that not once did I assume your ethnicity but you assumed mine LOL

Spoiler

I'm Black

Anyway, you keep deflecting with class or just ignoring me. Let's flip this on you - give me some examples of White Privilege since none of my examples apparently count.

My initial statement was about it not being okay to say racist, prejudicial, discriminatory, whatever things about anybody - and more pointedly that it's not okay to say those kinds of things to white people/the majority because they haven't suffered. So when somebody replies by arguing semantics by saying the majority can't suffer from racism is purely semantics if I give him the benefit of the doubt.

And quite honestly, the idea that racism can only be inflicted on minority is a really odd viewpoint. Odd being the kind expression as a cursory dialogue and minimal etiquette prevents me from saying or assuming more.

Oh don't misunderstand me, PoC can totally be racist against other PoC or White people. I was just saying that there are slightly different definitions of racism, depending if you are talking about systematic racism or not, that depend on power dynamics. That's also putting aside that I feel that there is sometimes an annoying amount of equivocation. Broadly, I've seen way too many conversations devolve because people legit feel or argue that "calling White people racist" is equivalent to calling Black people niggers, etc. All racism is bad but because of history, context, power dynamics, etc. not all sides are giving it as much as they are taking it. It's VERY VERY lopsided (you know this but I felt it was worth saying).

 

[MikeBreezy92]

My initial statement was about it not being okay to say racist, prejudicial, discriminatory, whatever things about anybody - and more pointedly that it's not okay to say those kinds of things to white people/the majority because they haven't suffered. So when somebody replies by arguing semantics by saying the majority can't suffer from racism is purely semantics if I give him the benefit of the doubt.

And quite honestly, the idea that racism can only be inflicted on minority is a really odd viewpoint. Odd being the kind expression as a cursory dialogue and minimal etiquette prevents me from saying or assuming more.

It's not an odd viewpoint at all it's actually becoming more common the more people have these kinds of conversations that are willing to listen. I get what you were saying though but the statement made by the woman in question wasn't predjudiced or racist at all, at least in my opinion.

I feel like the emotion behind statement is similar to that of "men are terrible, trash, etc." It's generalization that holds more truth than naught will while not everyone maybe "trash" or racist in this case, everyone has a large potential for it and it's best to be aware of it than to assume you doing nothing at all wrong.

 

[pretty done]

Can't believe that people are unironically declaring all white people racist in this thread.

Get it together Gaf.

If you can't believe it I doubt you read GAF much

 

[Madame M]

It's not an odd viewpoint at all it's actually becoming more common the more people have these kinds of conversations that are willing to listen. I get what you were saying though but the statement made by the woman in question wasn't predjudiced or racist at all, at least in my opinion.

I feel like the emotion behind statement is similar to that of "men are terrible, trash, etc." It's generalization that holds more truth than naught will while not everyone maybe "trash" or racist in this case, everyone has a large potential for it and it's best to be aware of it than to assume you doing nothing at all wrong.

I agree, people should feel guilty until proven innocent.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

I agree, people should feel guilty until proven innocent.

There's a difference between feeling guilty and knowing through social norms and environmental rearing I can say or do some problematic shit. But go ahead with this dry wit. I'm actually enjoying it.

 

[Unbounded]

Yeah...

You're the public face. I don't see why you would think that is remotely a good idea. Also if you're trying to speak to the general public you should try to spell literally everything out in the clearest terms possible. Implications are the worst mistake you can make.

 

[Napoleonthechimp]

I can understand the end result and thinking it's not a good look but the people that actually get personally offended by "all white people" statements are the absolute worst.

They're the worst are they? Right. Got it.

White people don't act as one race. We are individuals within a society and we interpret and understand things based on our experiences as individuals. So don't be fucking surprised when individual white people get upset. Even in this thread we've got terms like "white fragility" that generalise the experience of being offended.

 

[Knightmarre]

I am always amused when I see this posted, if both pics were from the same news agency or at least both American it would make sense. But one is the AP (Associated Press) and the other is AFT(Agence France-Presse).. international new agency. So the French are racist or give white looters as pass I guess.

IIRC the white people were photographed grabbing food that had floated out of the store, whereas the black people were seen breaking into a store to get the food.

 

[ChainedMaster]

Not surprised people are defending her just like people defended the BLM leader who said white people should give free shit to black people. Her original statements were wrong and offensive, plain and simple.

They're the worst are they? Right. Got it.

Right?

"You got offended because I insulted you and prejudged you based on the color of your skin? You're the absolute worst!"

 

[Ottaro]

If you are uncomfortable when people say "Everyone is racist," know that what they are saying is "Everyone is conditioned with subconcious prejudices." That is what they mean.

There are some semantic confusions around this but everyone i have met who says the former means the latter, and there is plenty of evidence that our western colonially dominated world has had that effect.

 

[Saint of Killers]

Racism doesn't work like that either.

I sometimes think people who think that that's how racism works are using a definition of the word the rest of us aren't aware of.

 

[MikeBreezy92]

I sometimes think people who think that that's how racism works are using a definition of the word the rest of us aren't aware of.

That's usually the case it's why people butt heads as stated before.

 

[Saint of Killers]

If you are uncomfortable when people say "Everyone is racist," know what what they are saying is "Everyone is conditioned with subconcious prejudices." That is what they mean.

There are some semantic confusions around this but everyone i have met who says the former means the latter, and there is plenty of evidence that our western colonially dominated world has had that effect.

She should have said what she *actually meant* as opposed to tossing out a sound bite. And shock fucking horror that a rag such as the Daily Heil chose to take her easy to misrepresent statement literally.

 

[Pizza con salsiccia]

In this thread, lots of white people talking about something they don't know.

 

[Madame M]

In this thread, lots of white people talking about something they don't know.

Which ones?

 

[MikeBreezy92]

She should have said what she *actually meant* as opposed to tossing out a sound bite. And shock fucking horror that a rag such as the Daily Heil chose to take her easy to misrepresent statement literally.

It wouldn't have mattered tbh.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

It's not an odd viewpoint at all it's actually becoming more common the more people have these kinds of conversations that are willing to listen. I get what you were saying though but the statement made by the woman in question wasn't predjudiced or racist at all, at least in my opinion.

I feel like the emotion behind statement is similar to that of "men are terrible, trash, etc." It's generalization that holds more truth than naught will while not everyone maybe "trash" or racist in this case, everyone has a large potential for it and it's best to be aware of it than to assume you doing nothing at all wrong.

What is the problem with using Systematic Racism? It's more accurate, and it isn't distorting a word used to describe either the broad belief of something discriminatory or the individual suffering from it. And I don't think there is a surge to change the definition of racism to include an inherent power/political dynamic.

Even putting this discussion aside, you haven't addressed my actual point. I don't want to make assumptions, but I'm going to assume you didn't disagree with the message.

As for the models message, saying ALL white people is saying ALL white people. Her intention might not have been what she said, but accidentally saying something that burdens an entire race, essentially for all time at least until we reach perfect equality, is wrong. I don't think she meant that all white people are racists, but her statement is wrong. We can discuss the definition of racism, though I admit I find major flaws with yours, but I can't really have a discussion about racism if somebody can't see the obvious flaws in the actual statement and not the presumed meaning.

If I try to make a point about race and in the process make a clearly wrong statement due to poor word choice or just a lack of clear communication, people would be right to criticize the actual words I use.

 

[Syder]

What is the problem with using Systematic Racism? It's more accurate, and it isn't distorting a word used to describe either the broad belief of something discriminatory or the individual suffering from it. And I don't think there is a surge to change the definition of racism to include an inherent power/political dynamic.

Even putting this discussion aside, you haven't addressed my actual point. I don't want to make assumptions, but I'm going to assume you didn't disagree with the message.

As for the models message, saying ALL white people is saying ALL white people. Her intention might not have been what she said, but accidentally saying something that burdens an entire race, essentially for all time at least until we reach perfect equality, is wrong. I don't think she meant that all white people are racists, but her statement is wrong. We can discuss the definition of racism, though I admit I find major flaws with yours, but I can't really have a discussion about racism if somebody can't see the obvious flaws in the actual statement and not the presumed meaning.

If I try to make a point about race and in the process make a clearly wrong statement due to poor word choice or just a lack of clear communication, people would be right to criticize the actual words I use.

Great post, agree with every word. You articulated my thoughts on this issue perfectly.

 

[Stare-Bear]

I consider myself to be pretty liberal (Dutch, always vote left wing) but I honestly can't bring up the good will anymore when people say all white people are racist. I can't help the colour of my skin. I can't help I was born into a rich western society. I can't help that the Dutch actively took part in the slave trade 400-200 years ago. But she's profiting from that as well. And she's profiting from modern slavery too. There have never been more slaves as there are now, but doing something about that means she can't buy clothes at any high street retailer, use a smart phone or buy non-fair trade foods.

But that would mean actual work, instead of being a keyboard warrior...